HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 28_Staff Report Requested Changes
March 21, 2023
Alex Morganroth
City of Renton Staff
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Towns on 12th, LUA22- 000180 , ECF, PP, SA-H
Staff Report Clarifications requested
Dear Mr. Morganroth,
We greatly appreciate the coordination we’ve had with the city to correct a few errors within the staff
report. I understand that a number of our concerns will be addressed by the city directly, as noted in the
attached email correspondence.
As currently written, the applicant team feels there are a few outstanding items that need further
clarification. We respectfully request that the following corrections be made to the staff report and
subsequent conditions of approval.
1. Page 30 of the Staff report, as well as condition 23 discusses the reduction of Alley width.
Applicant team believes that Renton Regional Fire Authority will require the alleys to continue to
be 20 feet wide as shown. Given this, we request that COA 23 be re-written as follows:
The applicant shall reduce the paved width of all the alleys, except ROW 4, to twelve (12’)
with two feet 2’) of clear space on each side, unless otherwise approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager OR as required for fire access by Renton Regional Fire Authority.
2. Page 34 of the Staff report discusses water requirements for the project. This was heavily
discussed with City staff throughout the review process. Specifically, water looping was deemed
not required around the buildings, and FDCs are not required due to the revised units per
building. Applicant understands that this comment originate from RFA, but it was city staff that
agreed it was not applicable nor required for the project. The applicant requests the last 3
sentences of the second paragraph be stricken as to not provide confusion at the time of final
construction permit design.
There are two (2) existing ¾- inch domestic water meters, one meter for each the two 2)
residences on the properties. The location and number of hydrants will be determined by the
Fire Authority based on the final fire flow demand and final site plan. A hydrant is required
within 50 feet of the building’ s fire sprinkler system fire department connection ( FDC).
Based on the fire flow demand of 3,000 gpm, three (3) hydrants would be required within 300
March 21, 2023 Mr. Morganroth, Page 2
J:\2021\21008\Submittals\2023-02-XX Hearing Documents\Staff Report Requested Changes.docx
feet of all buildings. In addition, a looped water main around building is required for projects
that exceed 2,500 gpm.
3. Condition 17. As written the applicant team requests this be re-written for clarity. As noted in
the response by the city, differing widths are required based on type and use of sidewalk or
pathway. Given this, we request that COA 23 be re-written as follows:
The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat plan and landscape plan that identifies
pedestrian connections for all unit lots. The pedestrian connections shall provide a minimum
width of five feet ( 5’). Public sidewalks shall be 5 feet or 8 feet wide, depending on the
street section. Common open space pathways shall be a minimum width of 3’ and front yard
entry walks on private property (i.e. the individual unit lots) shall be a minimum width of 3’
with a max of 4’.
Thank you for your consideration of the above-mentioned changes.
Additionally, for the record, email correspondence regarding the changes to be requested by the city is
attached.
Sincerely,
CORE DESIGN, INC.
Holli Heavrin, P.E.
Principal, Senior Project Engineer
1
Holli Heavrin
From:Holli Heavrin
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:11 AM
To:'anna@bluefern.com'; 'Benjamin Paulus'; 'Michelle Branley'; 'John Graves'; Alex Morganroth
Cc:'Alexander Clohesey'
Subject:RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Attachments:Staff Report Requested Changes.pdf
Thanks Alex for the follow up. I’ve included my responses below in blue. We do still have a few small items that we will
be requesting that the Hearing Examiner adjust, for clarity only. I’ve included that letter here.
Thanks again!
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Core Design, Inc.
From: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:41 PM
To: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>; anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>;
Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John Graves <johng@bluefern.com>
Subject: RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Hi Holli –
Please see below for responses in red. I will have limited time tomorrow morning to discuss as I’ll be preparing for the
hearing, but please let me know if there are any urgent questions/issues you’d like to discuss prior to the Hearing.
Thank you,
Alex
ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Renton | CED | Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov
From: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 5:26 PM
To: anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>; Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John
Graves <johng@bluefern.com>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
2
Thanks so much for meeting with us today Alex. I believe we discussed all of these, but our concerns are outlined
below. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to reach out the me.
HEX Report:
Page 2, number 5 notes Category III wetlands on site. No wetlands are on-site. The wetland is offsite, buffer extends on-
site. – will be noted to HE. Acceptable, thank you.
Page 4 number 8 – plans indicate the retention of 49 trees, not 46. – will be noted to HE. Acceptable, thank you.
Page 13, per the table on the landscape plans, sheet L1.02, Seven (7) landmark trees are proposed for retention. Tree
numbers are 601204, 800194, 800196, 800280, 601202, and 601320. – will be noted to HE. Acceptable, thank you.
Page 13 – tree replacement/density. As discussed earlier and it was noted that because this is a ULS, it is based on the
underlying parent parcel. But min tree density footnote 3 denotes that development in the RMF zone is exempt from min
tree density. – See response to separate email. See response in separate email.
Page 14 – Fences and retaining walls – section notes a 3’ landscape setback is to be added to the base of the retaining
wall. The wall along the Sunset improvements is not abutting the ROW, it is approx. 8 feet or more away from the ROW
line (but within the ROW). Since the wall is not abutting the ROW, this 3’ buffer should not be applicable. Note that any
additional buffer would also push the wall further into the slope, making the wall taller and impacting more trees on the
slope.
I know this was discussed in the meeting earlier today and it was noted that since the wall is in the ROW this setback
would not be required. We’d just like confirmation of that. – Yes, the 3 foot landscape setback requirement is for
situations on private property, not the ROW. Review of any walls/setbacks in the ROW would take place at the time of
civil construction permit. Acceptable, thank you.
Page 17, lot configuration – interior lot setbacks. We understand that unit variation and modulation are required. But
there is a whole menu of options on how modulation can be obtained through different architectural components and
designs. While the option of adjusting the setbacks of neighboring units is one way to achieve this, since there is a variety
of methods, the applicant team requests not to be held to one at this time. Forcing the setbacks at this time poses other
concerns such as the separation of the front of the unit to front.
Buildings are currently placed at depths off the alleys which are driven by utility easements/utility setbacks all within the
alley. Therefore units cannot move “forward”. Any requested modulation that pushes the units back would decrease the
separation between the front doors of the units. For safety purposes, it is best to have a wider corridor through here for
pedestrian access. – Noted. We believe the condition as written leaves plenty of flexibility to achieve the desired
outcome.
Understood, thank you.
Page 18 includes verbiage and requirements for detached garages. Should this be removed since we aren’t proposing
any? Concern that the hearing examiner may get confused by this. Our staff reports use a standard template for the
specific standards – the analysis makes it clear that the units are attached and I do not anticipate it causing any
confusion. Understood, thank you.
Page 19 – middle of the paragraph, notes the vault is to be fully underground. Apologies if this was not clear in the plans
but a small portion of the northeastern side is expected to be slightly exposed due to the slope on the north side of the
property. Currently ,the top of the vault is at approx. eleven 407. The NE corner finish grade elevation is approx. 404,
resulting in an approx. 3-4 feet of exposed wall. The applicant intends to screen any exposed portion with landscape
vegetation or planted lattice. – Will be noted to the HE. I will be adding a recommended condition of approval that the
3
exposed portion be either screened, utilize a veneer or trellising, or an alternative approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager .
Acceptable, thank you.
Page 19, further detailed in FOF 21, requests the pedestrian easements fronting the units be placed in separate
tracts. Renton Municipal code 4-2-115 E (3) allows entry to a unit to be taken from a pedestrian easement. I know we
discussed this in our meeting but I didn’t see anything in the ULS code that notes otherwise. Can you send that over?
– The does required entry from a pedestrian easement, however keep in mind that these Residential Design and Open
Standards are applicable to all sorts of residential development and subdivision. While allowed in some types of
residential development, it’s not applicable to unit-lot subdivisions. Two places in our code to look – first is the definition
of “unit lot” in RMC 4-11-190 under Subdivision, Unit Lot. Second is under Unit Lot Subdivision Requirements in RMC
4-7-090.F.1. As discussed, this is not a “zero-lot line” subdivision, but a unit lot division. The intent of unit lot subdivision
is for the lots to only consist of the structure and the private open space. We’ve been consistent in this requirement for all
unit-lot subdivisions entitled in the city.
SUBDIVISION, UNIT LOT: A division of land (parent site), for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership,
underlying existing or proposed attached townhouse dwelling units that creates a unit lot for each dwelling, for which one
or more boundaries of the individual unit lots coincide with the walls of the townhouse structure which separate individual
attached townhouse dwelling units.
Unit Lots: Parent sites developed or proposed to be developed with attached townhouse dwellings or cottage houses
may be subdivided into unit lots and the remainder of the parent site shall be platted as one or more tracts. The whole
parent site shall meet applicable development standards. Any private open space or private amenities for a dwelling unit
shall be provided on the same unit lot as the dwelling unit.
Parent Site: Prior to a unit lot subdivision or any subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the
structure(s), the applicant shall demonstrate that the whole parent site will comply with applicable standards and
requirements of this Title (i.e., the parent site shall be reviewed as though it is a single lot without any unit lots or tracts
within). For example, building coverage of the parent site shall include all qualifying structures within the development,
including those located or proposed to be located upon individual unit lots. Portions of the parent site not subdivided for
individual unit lots shall be platted as a tract and owned in common by the owners of the individual unit lots, or by a
homeowners’ association comprised of the owners of the individual unit lots.
Understood. Those areas of pedestrian easements will be placed in a tract and counted as common open space.
Page 20 – Private yards. There appears to be conflicting language if the use of deck counts toward the private open
space. The applicant requests clarity. Yes, decks/patios may count towards the maximum, but should not be used for all
of 250 sq. ft. In addition, per the Residential Design and Open Standards - An additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet
of open space per unit shall be added to the required amount of common open space for each unit that is not ground related. In
other words, if a deck is utilized for any portion of the private yard space (i.e. 50 sq. ft., 100 sq. ft., etc), an additional 250
sq. ft. of common open space is required, regardless of the amount of private open space the deck makes up. This is to
heavily incentivize ground-based private yard space, which has a much hire usability factor.
Understood, thank you.
Page 21 – City is requesting excessive additional pedestrian connections, which seems to conflict with statements on page
30 as justification for that notes the desire to reduce impervious. These additional walkways account for over 4,800 SF of
unnecessary impervious.
Another concern is that placing a walkway between buildings limits the ability to plant vegetation in these areas, reducing
homeowner privacy. Additionally, the end units are often where townhomes can add more windows, but that is limited by
a private access pathway between units.
4
The condition will be recommended as written. As most of the first floors of the units are garages, concerns about privacy
and glazing should be limited. The use of smaller horizontal windows on the upper portions of the first floors will provide
light while maximizing privacy for the garages if desired. Landscaping will still be required between the pathways and
home and should also provide a level of privacy. Lastly, while limiting impervious surfaces is certainly a goal, it should
not come at the expense of connectivity.
Understood, thank you.
Page 21 – access to lots 38 and 39 notes as not compliant. Each unit has access to the unit via a sidewalk. We added the
sidewalk between units 42 and 43 to provide ped access to these units (across the alley). Can you send over the code
section that regarding the pedestrian access requirements as we felt this met it? Please see the ‘Access and Circulation’
section in RMC 4-9-200. We do not agree that pedestrian access to a public alley utilized by 15 units meets the
requirements for providing safe and efficient internal pedestrian circulation.
Understood, thank you.
Page 21 – notes that all pathways to remain open to use by all members of the public. The sidewalks within Road A,
public ROW, will be public. Those pathways within private property will be for the use of the HOA residents and their
guests only. Enforcement of public access over all pathways leads to huge liability concerns for the HOA. Based on our
meeting I believe the intent here was just public access over the path from the proposed public ROW, north to sunset. We
request the language used be clarified. Correct – will clarify to HE. Acceptable, thank you.
Page 30, circulation. City notes to reduce the pavement of the Alleys. Applicant believes the Alleys are needed for Fire
Access. Has the city cleared this with Renton Regional Fire? As written, condition allows for flexibility. Will continue to
work with RFA to reduce where possible.
To ensue correct enforcement of requirements, applicant suggests COA 23 be re-written as follows:
The applicant shall reduce the paved width of all the alleys, except ROW 4, to twelve (12’) with two feet 2’) of clear
space on each side, unless otherwise approved by the Current Planning Project Manager OR as required for fire
access by Renton Regional Fire Authority.
Page 34 – water and sewer. Applicant team discussed this in detail with the city and proved that water does not need to
loop around the buildings. Additionally, the units do not require FDCs. Paragraph 2 of this section, the last 3 sentences
should be stricken. Will note to HE, but I cannot edit RFA comments. I believe you have emails from Nate confirming
acceptance of the proposal.
While this comment may be a leftover from RFA, the agreement that it was not applicable came from the city.
To ensure clarify applicant still requests the removal of the last 3 sentences of paragraph 2.
There are two (2) existing ¾- inch domestic water meters, one meter for each the two 2)
residences on the properties. The location and number of hydrants will be determined by the
Fire Authority based on the final fire flow demand and final site plan. A hydrant is required
within 50 feet of the building’ s fire sprinkler system fire department connection ( FDC).
Based on the fire flow demand of 3,000 gpm, three (3) hydrants would be required within 300
feet of all buildings. In addition, a looped water main around building is required for projects
that exceed 2,500 gpm.
Page 44 – condition 17, pedestrian connection width is noted differently throughout the report. Page 20,
Sidewalks. Number 2 and 3 note a width of 3 and 4 feet. Page 21 notes 5 feet wide. Condition 17 says 5 feet
wide. Please confirm width. Public sidewalks need to be 5 feet or 8 feet depending on street section, common open space
pathways have a minimum width of 3’, front yard entry walks on private property (i.e. the individual unit lots) have a
minimum with of 3’ with a max of 4’.
5
Applicant still requests this be clarified in COA 17 since it doesn’t specify the difference of public sidewalks versus
common open space pathways. Conditions simply states “pedestrian connections”. This could be interpreted
differently in the future. Applicant requests COA be revised as follows:
The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat plan and landscape plan that identifies pedestrian
connections for all unit lots. The pedestrian connections shall provide a minimum width of five feet ( 5’). Public
sidewalks shall be 5 feet or 8 feet wide, depending on street section. Common open space pathways shall be a
minimum width of 3’ and front yard entry walks on private property (i.e. the individual unit lots) shall be a
minimum width of 3’ with a max of 4’.
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Principal, Engineering Technical Manager
Office: 425.885.7877 | Cell: 206.697.9474 | www.cor edesigninc.com
1
Holli Heavrin
From:Holli Heavrin
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:13 AM
To:Alex Morganroth; anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus; Michelle Branley; John Graves
Cc:Lindsey Solorio; Alexander Clohesey
Subject:RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Thank you Alex for this clarification. As you note this to the hearing examiner, can you please include that condition of
approval 6, related to this, be updated accordingly?
Thanks!
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Core Design, Inc.
From: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:04 AM
To: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>; anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>;
Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John Graves <johng@bluefern.com>
Cc: Lindsey Solorio <LSolorio@coredesigninc.com>; Alexander Clohesey <AJC@milbrandtarch.com>
Subject: RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
You are correct – sorry for the confusion. We had one minor change in the ordinance where that footnote was
applicable for a few years (and in the time period you applied). Therefore you are correct – no minimum tree density in
RMF zoned portion of the site. Will note this at the hearing.
Thank you,
ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Renton | CED | Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov
From: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:59 AM
To: anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>; Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John
Graves <johng@bluefern.com>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Lindsey Solorio <LSolorio@coredesigninc.com>; Alexander Clohesey <AJC@milbrandtarch.com>
Subject: RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Alex,
In regard to the tree density, the formal copy of the revised ordinance shows the old code (since the old code is no
longer available online). Page 9/10 has the same table you note below but includes the footnote that was previously in
place (applicable to this project as it is vested to the old tree ordinance). See attached signed ordinance.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
2
Since tree density is exempt in the RMF zone, we need to understand how to properly calculate the tree density and
revise the COA to match.
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Core Design, Inc.
From: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:44 PM
To: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>
Cc: Lindsey Solorio <LSolorio@coredesigninc.com>; anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>;
Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John Graves <johng@bluefern.com>
Subject: RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Hi Holli –
Responding separately to this one. Can you tell what ordinance the code section you site below if from? I’m not seeing a
footnote 3 in the ordinance I’m looking at it.
ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Renton | CED | Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov
From: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:43 AM
To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
3
Cc: Lindsey Solorio <LSolorio@coredesigninc.com>; anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>;
Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John Graves <johng@bluefern.com>
Subject: RE: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Sorry Alex, another follow up question.
Page 13 – tree density. Based on our call last week I understand that since this is a ULS, the parent parcel is used to
determine the overall lot size. BUT, footnote 3 notes that tree density in the RMF zone is exempt. Do we need to
comply then only with tree density of the underlying area of the R-10 zone only?
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Core Design, Inc.
From: Holli Heavrin <HHeavrin@coredesigninc.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 5:26 PM
To: anna@bluefern.com; Benjamin Paulus <ben@bluefern.com>; Michelle Branley <michelle@bluefern.com>; John
Graves <johng@bluefern.com>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Towns on 12th HEX report changes requested
Thanks so much for meeting with us today Alex. I believe we discussed all of these, but our concerns are outlined
below. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to reach out the me.
HEX Report:
Page 2, number 5 notes Category III wetlands on site. No wetlands are on-site. The wetland is offsite, buffer extends
on-site.
Page 4 number 8 – plans indicate the retention of 49 trees, not 46.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
4
Page 13, per the table on the landscape plans, sheet L1.02, Seven (7) landmark trees are proposed for retention. Tree
numbers are 601204, 800194, 800196, 800280, 601202, and 601320.
Page 13 – tree replacement/density. As discussed earlier and it was noted that because this is a ULS, it is based on the
underlying parent parcel. But min tree density footnote 3 denotes that development in the RMF zone is exempt from
min tree density.
Page 14 – Fences and retaining walls – section notes a 3’ landscape setback is to be added to the base of the retaining
wall. The wall along the Sunset improvements is not abutting the ROW, it is approx. 8 feet or more away from the ROW
line (but within the ROW). Since the wall is not abutting the ROW, this 3’ buffer should not be applicable. Note that any
additional buffer would also push the wall further into the slope, making the wall taller and impacting more trees on the
slope.
I know this was discussed in the meeting earlier today and it was noted that since the wall is in the ROW this setback
would not be required. We’d just like confirmation of that.
Page 17, lot configuration – interior lot setbacks. We understand that unit variation and modulation are required. But
there is a whole menu of options on how modulation can be obtained through different architectural components and
designs. While the option of adjusting the setbacks of neighboring units is one way to achieve this, since there is a
variety of methods, the applicant team requests not to be held to one at this time. Forcing the setbacks at this time
poses other concerns such as the separation of the front of the unit to front.
Buildings are currently placed at depths off the alleys which are driven by utility easements/utility setbacks all within the
alley. Therefore units cannot move “forward”. Any requested modulation that pushes the units back would decrease
the separation between the front doors of the units. For safety purposes, it is best to have a wider corridor through
here for pedestrian access.
Page 18 includes verbiage and requirements for detached garages. Should this be removed since we aren’t proposing
any? Concern that the hearing examiner may get confused by this.
Page 19 – middle of the paragraph, notes the vault is to be fully underground. Apologies if this was not clear in the plans
but a small portion of the northeastern side is expected to be slightly exposed due to the slope on the north side of the
property. Currently ,the top of the vault is at approx. eleven 407. The NE corner finish grade elevation is approx. 404,
resulting in an approx. 3-4 feet of exposed wall. The applicant intends to screen any exposed portion with landscape
vegetation or planted lattice.
Page 19, further detailed in FOF 21, requests the pedestrian easements fronting the units be placed in separate
tracts. Renton Municipal code 4-2-115 E (3) allows entry to a unit to be taken from a pedestrian easement. I know we
discussed this in our meeting but I didn’t see anything in the ULS code that notes otherwise. Can you send that over?
Page 20 – Private yards. There appears to be conflicting language if the use of deck counts toward the private open
space. The applicant requests clarity.
Page 21 – City is requesting excessive additional pedestrian connections, which seems to conflict with statements on
page 30 as justification for that notes the desire to reduce impervious. These additional walkways account for over
4,800 SF of unnecessary impervious.
Another concern is that placing a walkway between buildings limits the ability to plant vegetation in these areas,
reducing homeowner privacy. Additionally, the end units are often where townhomes can add more windows, but that
is limited by a private access pathway between units.
Page 21 – access to lots 38 and 39 notes as not compliant. Each unit has access to the unit via a sidewalk. We added the
sidewalk between units 42 and 43 to provide ped access to these units (across the alley). Can you send over the code
section that regarding the pedestrian access requirements as we felt this met it?
5
Page 21 – notes that all pathways to remain open to use by all members of the public. The sidewalks within Road A,
public ROW, will be public. Those pathways within private property will be for the use of the HOA residents and their
guests only. Enforcement of public access over all pathways leads to huge liability concerns for the HOA. Based on our
meeting I believe the intent here was just public access over the path from the proposed public ROW, north to
sunset. We request the language used be clarified.
Page 30, circulation. City notes to reduce the pavement of the Alleys. Applicant believes the Alleys are needed for Fire
Access. Has the city cleared this with Renton Regional Fire?
Page 34 – water and sewer. Applicant team discussed this in detail with the city and proved that water does not need to
loop around the buildings. Additionally, the units do not require FDCs. Paragraph 2 of this section, the last 3 sentences
should be stricken.
Page 44 – condition 17, pedestrian connection width is noted differently throughout the report. Page 20,
Sidewalks. Number 2 and 3 note a width of 3 and 4 feet. Page 21 notes 5 feet wide. Condition 17 says 5 feet
wide. Please confirm width.
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Principal, Engineering Technical Manager
Office: 425.885.7877 | Cell: 206.697.9474 | www.cor edesigninc.com